Of the many promises that council candidates have made over the last few elections, the two-term pledge seems to be becoming increasingly popular. Some believe that a self-imposed deadline builds urgency, others that two terms is sufficient time to accomplish all their goals, or simply a commitment to ensure that fresh faces and fresh ideas are always present at the council table.

The pledge, it seems, comes from the right place. But as a campaign promise, it’s ridiculous. No candidate should be making it.

As an Ottawa voter, I think of council candidates as either “good” or “bad.” Bad council candidates — those whose vision of the ward and the city don’t align with mine — become no more attractive with a two-term pledge. A guarantee of fewer than eight years doesn’t ease my mind; I’d rather they serve no years at all.

If a good candidate turns out to be a good councillor, I’d rather he or she not be restricted to two terms. This is the case with Steve Desroches, a great (and popular) councillor who won’t be running for council in the 2014 election because of his two-term pledge. It would be a shame if Desroches felt pressure to step down because of a pointless election promise made in 2006.

In contrast with Desroches is Bob Monette, incumbent from Orléans Ward, who has “failed” to live up to his two-term pledge and will be running again in 2014. Monette cited an “overwhelming response” from constituents hopeful that he would run again.

The fact that this two-term pledge may have cost us one good councillor — and counting, as several candidates have committed (or re-committed) to similar self-imposed term limits during the 2014 campaign — is frustrating. It’s a pointless promise that accomplishes nothing constructive.

A two-term pledge isn’t necessary to build urgency. It’s also not the point, as the urgency could be accomplished by a pledge to complete specific objectives within the two terms; if a councillor fails to accomplish those, the ward will get the opportunity to take him or her to task during the following election. And some projects may simply reveal themselves to be impossible to accomplish in two terms; if the incumbent decides against running again, some of the work done in those two terms will have to be re-done by an incoming councillor.

Furthermore, the work of a city councillor never ends — certainly not after two terms. An individual councillor’s tasks change with the circumstances of the ward, and the idea that two terms is enough to accomplish everything you could want it laughable. There is always more to be done.

Finally, voters can be trusted to decide when fresh faces are required at the council table. If an incumbent decides against running because of a lack of energy or initiative, that’s one thing, but to bind yourself to a two-term promise despite continuing motivation for the job costs the councillor and the constituents.

A lot of things can change in eight years, and a councillor is certain to gain a lot of valuable experience in that time. This city doesn’t have term limits for city councillors because voters are trusted with the decision of who should represent them in council, regardless (maybe even because) of how long they’re been doing it. Candidates should not tie their hands with a voluntary term limit that offers no legitimate benefits.

Instead, make promises on issues that matter, like transit, infrastructure, social services, city events, and the like. Voters will hold you to account.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.